THE COURTS
[ 234 PA. CODE CH. 6 ]
Order Adopting New Rules 626 and 627, Amending Rules 631, 632 and 647, Approving the Revision of the Comment to Rule 646, and Renumbering Rule 630 as Rule 625 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; No. 464 Criminal Procedural Rules Doc.
[45 Pa.B. 3980]
[Saturday, July 25, 2015]
Order Per Curiam
And Now, this 7th day of July, 2015, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 42 Pa.B. 380 (January 21, 2012), and in the Atlantic Reporter (Third Series Advance Sheets, Vol. 34), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that new Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 626 and 627 and the amendments to Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 631, 632, and 647 are adopted, the revision to the Comment to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 646 is approved, and Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 630 is renumbered to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 625 in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective October 1, 2015.
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 6. TRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES
PART C. Jury Procedures Rule [630] 625. Juror Qualification Form, Lists of Trial Jurors, and Challenge to the Array.
* * * * *
Comment The qualification, selection, and summoning of prospective jurors, as well as related matters, are generally dealt with in Chapter 45, Subchapters A-C, of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 4501—4503, 4521—4526, 4531—4532. ''Law'' as used in paragraph (B)(2) of this rule is intended to include these Judicial Code provisions. However, paragraphs (B)(1) and (2) of this rule are intended to supersede the procedures set forth in Section 4526(a) of the Judicial Code and that provision is suspended as being inconsistent with this rule. See PA. CONST. art. V[.], § 10; 42 Pa.C.S. § 4526(c). Sections 4526(b) and (d)—(f) of the Judicial Code are not affected by this rule.
Paragraph (A) was amended in 1998 to require that the counties use the juror qualification forms provided for in Section 4521 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 4521. It is intended that the attorneys in a case may inspect and copy or photograph the jury lists and the qualification forms for the prospective jurors summoned for their case. The information on the qualification forms is not to be disclosed except as provided by this rule or by statute. This rule is different from Rule 632, which requires that jurors complete the standard, confidential information questionnaire for use during voir dire.
Official Note: Adopted January 24, 1968, effective August 1, 1968; Comment revised January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended September 15, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; September 15, 1993 amendments suspended December 17, 1993 until further Order of the Court; the September 15, 1993 Order amending Rule 1104 is superseded by the September 18, 1998 Order, and Rule 1104 is amended September 18, 1998, effective July 1, 1999; amended May 14, 1999, effective July 1, 1999; renumbered Rule 630 March 1, 2001, effective April 1, 2001; amended March 28, 2000, effective July 1, 2000; renumbered Rule 625 July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2015.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the July 7, 2015 renumbering of Rule 630 to Rule 625 published with the Court's Order at 45 Pa.B. 3985 (July 25, 2015).
(Editor's Note: Rules 626 and 627 are new and printed in regular type to enhance readability.)
Rule 626. Preliminary Instructions to Prospective and Selected Jurors.
(A) For purposes of this rule,
(1) the term ''prospective jurors'' means those persons who have been chosen to be part of the panel from which the trial jurors and alternate jurors will be selected;
(2) the term ''selected jurors'' means those members of the panel who have been selected to serve as trial jurors or alternate jurors; and
(3) the term ''jury service'' means service as (1) members of the jury array, (2) prospective jurors, and (3) selected jurors.
(B) Persons reporting for jury service, upon their arrival for this service, shall be instructed in their duties while serving as prospective jurors and selected jurors.
(C) At a minimum, the persons reporting for jury service shall be instructed that until their service as prospective or selected jurors is concluded, they shall not:
(1) discuss any case in which they have been chosen as prospective jurors or selected jurors with others, including other jurors, except as instructed by the court;
(2) read or listen to any news reports about any such case;
(3) use a computer, cellular phone, or other electronic device with communication capabilities while in attendance at trial or during deliberation. These devices may be used during breaks or recesses but never may be used to obtain or disclose information prohibited in paragraph (C)(4);
(4) use a computer, cellular phone, or other electronic device with communication capabilities, or any other method, to obtain or disclose any information about any case in which they have been chosen as prospective or selected jurors. Information about the case includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) information about a party, witness, attorney, judge, or court officer;
(ii) news reports of the case;
(iii) information collected through juror research using such devices about the facts of the case;
(iv) information collected through juror research using such devices on any topics raised or testimony offered by any witness;
(v) information collected through juror research using such devices on any other topic the juror might think would be helpful in deciding the case.
(D) These instructions shall be repeated:
(1) to the prospective jurors at the beginning of voir dire;
(2) to the selected jurors at the commencement of the trial;
(3) to the selected jurors prior to deliberations; and
(4) to the selected jurors during trial as the trial judge deems appropriate.
(E) Jurors shall be instructed that they are required to inform the court immediately of any violation of this rule.
Comment This rule was adopted in 2015 in recognition of the fact that the proliferation of personal communications devices has provided individuals with an unprecedented level of access to information. This access has the potential for abuse by prospective jurors who might be tempted to perform research about a case for which they may be selected. Therefore, the rule requires that prospective jurors be instructed at the earliest possible stage as to their duty to rely solely on information presented in a case and to refrain from discussion about the case, either in person or electronically.
It is recommended that the juror summons also contain the language.
It also is recommended, as an additional means of ensuring adherence, that the judge explain to the prospective jurors the reason for these restrictions. This explanation should include a statement that, in order for the jury system to work as intended, absolute impartiality on the part of the jurors is necessary. Such impartiality is achieved by restricting the information upon which the jurors will base their decision to that which is presented in court.
Official Note: Adopted July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2015.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the July 7, 2015 adoption of new Rule 626 regarding instructions to prospective jurors published with the Court's Order at 45 Pa.B. 3985 (July 25, 2015).
Rule 627. Sanctions for Use of Prohibited Electronic Devices.
Any individual who violates the provisions of Rule 112(A) prohibiting recording or broadcasting during a judicial proceeding or who violates the Court's instructions required by Rule 626 regarding the use of electronic devices by jurors or who violates any limitation imposed by a local rule or by the trial judge regarding the prohibited use of electronic devices during court proceedings:
(1) may be found in contempt of court and sanctioned in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132 et seq.; and
(2) may be subject to sanctions deemed appropriate by the trial judge, including, but not limited to, the confiscation of the electronic device that is used in violation of these rules.
Comment This rule was adopted in 2015 to make clear that in addition to the penalties for contempt that may be imposed upon an individual who violates these rules or a court-imposed restriction on the use of electronic devices during court proceedings, such devices may be temporarily or permanently confiscated by the court.
Official Note: Adopted July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2015.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the July 7, 2015 adoption of new Rule 627 regarding sanctions for use of prohibited communications devices published with the Court's Order at 45 Pa.B. 3985 (July 25, 2015).
PART C(1). Impaneling Jury Rule 631. Examination and Challenges of Trial Jurors.
(A) Voir dire of prospective trial jurors and prospective alternate jurors shall be conducted, and the jurors shall be selected, in the presence of a judge, unless the judge's presence is waived by the attorney for the Commonwealth, the defense attorney, and the defendant, with the judge's consent.
(B) This oath shall be administered individually or collectively to the prospective jurors:
''You do solemnly swear by Almighty God (or do declare and affirm) that you will answer truthfully all questions that may be put to you concerning your qualifications for service as a juror.''(C) Upon completion of the oath, the judge shall instruct the prospective jurors upon their duties and restrictions while serving as jurors, and of any sanctions for violation of those duties and restrictions, including those provided in Rule 626(C) and Rule 627.
[(C)] (D) Voir dire, including the judge's ruling on all proposed questions, shall be recorded in full unless the recording is waived. The record will be transcribed only upon written request of either party or order of the judge.
[(D)] (E) Prior to voir dire, each prospective juror shall complete the standard, confidential juror information questionnaire as provided in Rule 632. The judge may require the parties to submit in writing a list of proposed questions to be asked of the jurors regarding their qualifications. The judge may permit the defense and the prosecution to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or the judge may conduct the examination. In the latter event, the judge shall permit the defense and the prosecution to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as the judge deems proper.
[(E)] (F) In capital cases, the individual voir dire method must be used, unless the defendant waives that alternative. In non-capital cases, the trial judge shall select one of the following alternative methods of voir dire, which shall apply to the selection of both jurors and alternates:
(1) INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE AND CHALLENGE SYSTEM.
(a) Voir dire of prospective jurors shall be conducted individually and may be conducted beyond the hearing and presence of other jurors.
(b) Challenges, both peremptory and for cause, shall be exercised alternately, beginning with the attorney for the Commonwealth, until all jurors are chosen. Challenges shall be exercised immediately after the prospective juror is examined. Once accepted by all parties, a prospective juror shall not be removed by peremptory challenge. Without declaring a mistrial, a judge may allow a challenge for cause at any time before the jury begins to deliberate, provided sufficient alternates have been selected, or the defendant consents to be tried by a jury of fewer than 12, pursuant to Rule 641.
(2) LIST SYSTEM OF CHALLENGES.
(a) A list of prospective jurors shall be prepared. The list shall contain a sufficient number of prospective jurors to total at least 12, plus the number of alternates to be selected, plus the total number of peremptory challenges (including alternates).
(b) Prospective jurors may be examined collectively or individually regarding their qualifications. If the jurors are examined individually, the examination may be conducted beyond the hearing and presence of other jurors.
(c) Challenges for cause shall be exercised orally as soon as the cause is determined.
(d) When a challenge for cause has been sustained, which brings the total number on the list below the number of 12 plus alternates, plus peremptory challenges (including alternates), additional prospective jurors shall be added to the list.
(e) Each prospective juror subsequently added to the list may be examined as set forth in paragraph [(E)(2)(b)] (F)(2)(b).
(f) When the examination has been completed and all challenges for cause have been exercised, peremptory challenges shall then be exercised by passing the list between prosecution and defense, with the prosecution first striking the name of a prospective juror, followed by the defense, and alternating thereafter until all peremptory challenges have been exhausted. If either party fails to exhaust all peremptory challenges, the jurors last listed shall be stricken. The remaining jurors and alternates shall be seated. No one shall disclose which party peremptorily struck any juror.
Comment This rule applies to all cases, regardless of potential sentence. Formerly there were separate rules for capital and non-capital cases.
If Alternative [(E)(1)] (F)(1) is used, examination continues until all peremptory challenges are exhausted or until 12 jurors and 2 alternates are accepted. Challenges must be exercised immediately after the prospective juror is questioned. In capital cases, only Alternative [(E)(1)] (F)(1) may be used unless affirmatively waived by all defendants and the Commonwealth, with the approval of the trial judge.
If Alternative [(E)(2)] (F)(2) is used, sufficient jurors are assembled to total 12, plus the number of alternates, plus at least the permitted number of peremptory challenges (including alternates). It may be advisable to assemble additional jurors to encompass challenges for cause. Prospective jurors may be questioned individually, out of the presence of other prospective jurors, as in Alternative [(E)(1)] (F)(1); or prospective jurors may be questioned in the presence of each other. Jurors may be challenged only for cause, as the cause arises. If the challenges for cause reduce the number of prospectivejurors below 12, plus alternates, plus peremptory challenges (including alternates), new prospective jurors are called and they are similarly examined. When the examination is completed, the list is reduced, leaving only 12 jurors to be selected, plus the number of peremptories to be exercised; and sufficient additional names to total the number of alternates, plus the peremptories to be exercised in selecting alternates. The parties then exercise the peremptory challenges by passing the list back and forth and by striking names from the list alternately, beginning with counsel for the prosecution. Under this system, all peremptory challenges must be utilized. Alternates are selected from the remaining names in the same manner. Jurors are not advised by whom each peremptory challenge was exercised. Also, under Alternative [(E)(2)] (F)(2), prospective jurors will not know whether they have been chosen until the challenging process is complete and the roll is called.
This rule requires that prospective jurors be sworn before questioning under either Alternative.
The words in parentheses in the oath shall be inserted when any of the prospective jurors chooses to affirm rather than swear to the oath.
Unless the judge's presence during voir dire and the jury selection process is waived pursuant to paragraph (A), the judge must be present in the jury selection room during voir dire and the jury selection process.
Pursuant to paragraph [(D)] (E), which was amended in 1998, and Rule 632, prospective jurors are required to complete the standard, confidential juror information questionnaire prior to voir dire. This questionnaire, which facilitates and expedites voir dire, provides the judge and attorneys with basic background information about the jurors, and is intended to be used as an aid in the oral examination of the jurors.
The point in time prior to voir dire that the questionnaires are to be completed is left to the discretion of the local officials. Nothing in this rule is intended to require that the information questionnaires be mailed to jurors before they appear in court pursuant to a jury summons.
See Rule 103 for definitions of ''capital case'' and ''voir dire.''
Official Note: Adopted January 24, 1968, effective August 1, 1968; amended May 1, 1970, effective May 4, 1970; amended June 30, 1975, effective September 28, 1975. The 1975 amendment combined former Rules 1106 and 1107. Comment revised January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended September 15, 1993, effective January 1, 1994. The September 15, 1993 amendments suspended December 17, 1993 until further Order of the Court; amended February 27, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; the September 15, 1993 Order amending Rule 1106 is superseded by the September 18, 1998 Order, and Rule 1106 is amended September 18, 1998, effective July 1, 1999; renumbered Rule 631 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2015.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the July 7, 2015 amendment regarding instructions to the prospective jurors published with the Court's Order at 45 Pa.B. 3985 (July 25, 2015).
Rule 632. Juror Information Questionnaire.
* * * * * (D) Juror information questionnaires shall be used in conjunction with the examination of the prospective jurors conducted by the judge or counsel pursuant to Rule [631(D)] 631(E).
* * * * *
Comment This rule requires that, prior to voir dire in any criminal case, the prospective jurors, including prospective alternate jurors, must complete the standard, confidential juror information questionnaire required in paragraph (H), and that the trial judge and attorneys must automatically be given copies of the completed questionnaires in time to examine them before voir dire begins. Compare Rule [630] 625, which provides that attorneys must request copies of juror qualification forms for the jurors summoned in their case.
Under paragraph (A)(2), it is intended that the president judge of each judicial district may designate procedures for submitting the questionnaire to the jurors and maintaining them upon completion. For example, some districts may choose to mail them along with their jury qualification form, while others may desire to have the questionnaire completed by the panel of prospective jurors when they report for jury service. This rule, however, mandates that the questionnaires be completed by each prospective juror to a criminal case.
Each judicial district must provide the jurors with instructions for completing the form, and inform them of the procedures for maintaining confidentiality of the questionnaires. It is expected that each judicial district will inform the jurors that the questionnaires will only be used for jury selection.
Pursuant to paragraph (C), the juror information questionnaire is not a public record and therefore may not be combined in one form with the qualification questionnaire required by Rule [630] 625. However, nothing in this rule would prohibit the distribution of both questionnaires in the same mailing.
Under paragraph (B), the information provided by the jurors is confidential and may be used only for the purpose of jury selection. Except for disclosures made during voir dire, the information in the completed questionnaires may not be disclosed to anyone except the trial judge, the attorneys and any persons assisting the attorneys in jury selection, such as a member of the trial team or a consultant hired to assist in jury selection, the defendant, and any court personnel designated by the judge. Even once disclosed to such persons, however, the information in the questionnaires remains confidential.
Although the defendant may participate in voir dire and have access to information from the questionnaire, nothing in this rule is intended to allow a defendant to have a copy of the questionnaire.
Paragraph (D) makes it clear that juror information questionnaires are to be used in conjunction with the oral examination of the prospective jurors, and are not to be used as a substitute for the oral examination. Juror information questionnaires facilitate and expedite the voir dire examination by providing the trial judge and attorneys with basic background information about the jurors, thereby eliminating the need for many commonly asked questions. Although nothing in this rule is intended topreclude oral questioning during voir dire, the scope of voir dire is within the discretion of the trial judge. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. McGrew, 100 A.2d 467 (Pa. 1953) and Rule [631(D)] 631(E).
* * * * * Official Note: Former Rule 1107 rescinded September 28, 1975. Present Rule 1107 adopted September 15, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; suspended December 17, 1993 until further Order of the Court; the September 15, 1993 Order is superseded by the September 18, 1998 Order, and present Rule 1107 adopted September 18, 1998, effective July 1, 1999; renumbered Rule 632 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 1, 2005, effective August 1, 2005; amended July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2015.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. [1477] 1478 (March 18, 2000).
* * * * * Final Report explaining the July 7, 2015 amendments correcting cross-references to Rules 625 and 631 published with the Court's Order at 45 Pa.B. 3985 (July 25, 2015).
Rule 646. Material Permitted in Possession of the Jury.
* * * * *
Comment * * * * * See Rule [647(A)] 647(B) (Request for Instructions, Charge to the Jury, and Preliminary Instructions) concerning the content of the charge and written requests for instructions to the jury.
The 1996 amendment adding ''or otherwise recorded'' in paragraph (C)(2) is not intended to enlarge or modify what constitutes a confession under this rule. Rather, the amendment is only intended to recognize that a confession can be recorded in a variety of ways. See Commonwealth v. Foster, 425 Pa.Super. 61, 624 A.2d 144 (1993).
Nothing in this rule is intended to preclude jurors from taking notes during testimony related to a defendant's confession and such notes may be in the jurors' possession during deliberations.
Paragraph (D) was added in 2005 to make it clear that the notes the jurors take pursuant to Rule 644 may be used during deliberations.
Official Note: Rule 1114 adopted January 24, 1968, effective August 1, 1968; amended June 28, 1974, effective September 1, 1974; Comment revised August 12, 1993, effective September 1, 1993; amended January 16, 1996, effective July 1, 1996; amended November 18, 1999, effective January 1, 2000; renumbered Rule 646 March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2005; amended August 7, 2008, effective immediately; amended October 16, 2009, effective February 1, 2010; amended June 21, 2012, effective in 180 days; Comment revised July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2105.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the July 7, 2015 Comment revision correcting a cross-reference to Rule 647 published with the Court's Order at 45 Pa.B. 3985 (July 25, 2015).
Rule 647. Request for Instructions, Charge to the Jury, and Preliminary Instructions.
(A) Before the taking of evidence, the trial judge shall give instructions to the jurors as provided in Rule 626.
[(A)] (B) Any party may submit to the trial judge written requests for instructions to the jury. Such requests shall be submitted within a reasonable time before the closing arguments, and at the same time copies thereof shall be furnished to the other parties. Before closing arguments, the trial judge shall inform the parties on the record of the judge's rulings on all written requests and which instructions shall be submitted to the jury in writing. The trial judge shall charge the jury after the arguments are completed.
[(B)] (C) No portions of the charge nor omissions from the charge may be assigned as error, unless specific objections are made thereto before the jury retires to deliberate. All such objections shall be made beyond the hearing of the jury.
[(C)] (D) After the jury has retired to consider its verdict, additional or correctional instructions may be given by the trial judge in the presence of all parties, except that the defendant's absence without cause shall not preclude proceeding, as provided in Rule 602.
[(D)] (E) The trial judge may give any other instructions to the jury before the taking of evidence or at anytime during the trial as the judge deems necessary and appropriate for the jury's guidance in hearing the case.
Comment Paragraph [(A)] (B), amended in 1985, parallels the procedures in many other jurisdictions which require that the trial judge rule on the parties' written requests for instructions before closing arguments, that the rulings are on the record, and that the judge charge the jury after the closing arguments. See, e.g., Fed.R.Crim.P. 30; ABA Standards on Trial by Jury, Standard [15-3.6(a)] 15-3.6; Uniform Rule of Criminal Procedure 523(b).
Pursuant to Rule 646 (Material Permitted in Possession of the Jury), the judge must determine whether to provide the members of the jury with written copies of the portion of the judge's charge on the elements of the offenses, lesser included offenses, and any defense upon which the jury has been instructed for use during deliberations.
Paragraph (A) was added in 2015 to require trial judges to instruct jurors that they are prohibited from using computers or cell phones at trial or during deliberation, and are prohibited from using a computer or other electronic device or any other method to obtain or disclose information about the case when they are not in the courtroom. The amendment prohibits jurors from reading about or listening to news reports about the case and prohibits discussion among jurors until deliberation.
Paragraph [(D)] (E), added in 1985, recognizes the value of jury instructions to juror comprehension of the trial process. It is intended that the trial judge determine on a case by case basis whether instructions before the taking of evidence or at anytime during trial are appropriate or necessary to assist the jury in hearing the case. The judge should determine what instructions to give based on the particular case, but at a minimum the preliminary instructions should orient the jurors to the trial procedures and to their duties and function as jurors. In addition, it is suggested that the instructions may include such points as note taking, the elements of the crime charged, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and credibility. Furthermore, if a specific defense is raised by evidence presented during trial, the judge may want to instruct on the elements of the defense immediately after it is presented to enable the jury to properly evaluate the specific defense. See also Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Criminal Jury Instructions, Chapter II.
Official Note: Rule 1119 adopted January 24, 1968, effective August 1, 1968; amended April 23, 1985, effective July 1, 1985; renumbered Rule 647 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2005; amended October 16, 2009, effective February 1, 2010; amended July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2015.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the July 7, 2015 amendment regarding the use of personal communications devices and computers by the jurors published with the Court's Order at 45 Pa.B. 3985 (July 25, 2015).
FINAL REPORT1
New Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 626 and 627, Amendments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 631, 632, and 647, Revision to the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 646, and Renumbering of Pa.R.Crim.P. 630
Personal Electronic Devices in the Courtroom by Jurors On July 7, 2015, effective October 1, 2015, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court adopted new Rules of Criminal Procedure 626 (Preliminary Instructions to Prospective Jurors) and 627 (Sanctions for Use of Prohibited Electronic Devices), amended Rules 631 (Examination and Challenges of Trial Jurors), 632 (Juror Information Questionnaire) and 647 (Request for Instructions, Charge to the Jury, and Preliminary Instructions), revised the Comment to Rule 646 (Material Permitted in Possession of the Jury), and renumbered Rule 630 (Juror Qualification Form, Lists of Trial Jurors, and Challenge to the Array) to Rule 625 to provide for instructions to prospective and selected jurors concerning the use of personal communications devices during their service. These rule changes had been proposed in conjunction with a similar package of rule changes proposed by the Civil Procedural Rule Committee.2
The increased use of personal electronic devices, often with Internet access, such as the iPhone and iPad, has raised new issues regarding their use in the courtroom. In 2010, the Court wrote to the chairs of the Civil Procedural Rules Committee and the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee alerting the Committees to a number of complaints about problems arising from jurors' inappropriate use of electronic devices during their service as jurors. The Court directed both Committees to consider whether any rule changes were warranted to address these problems. As a result, a Joint Subcommittee of the Civil and Criminal Rules Committees was formed to examine the issues that have arisen and determine if any procedural rules changes are needed to address these issues.3 A major part of the Joint Subcommittee examination of these issues was the use of this technology by jurors. Both Committees approved the recommendations of the Joint Subcommittee for publication, which was accomplished on January 21, 2012.4
The problems that arise with juror use of these devices are two-fold. The first danger is that a juror will use the device to conduct independent research during a trial. The second problem is the use of these devices to communicate with parties outside the courtroom, either by revealing the nature of the deliberations or other information that a juror should not divulge. The Committees concluded that the best way to approach this problem is through specially tailored jury instructions.
Originally, the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee considered a simple elaboration in the juror instruction rules. However, given the ease of access to information that these devices provide, waiting until a juror is actually seated may be too late in the process. This conclusion was coupled with anecdotal reports that some jurors found to have misused these devices, when confronted, expressed surprise that a ban on outside information included ''looking things up on the Internet.''
The Committee concluded that intervention, in the form of clear instructions, should be at the earliest stage possible. Therefore, the rule changes provide that prospective jurors be advised upon their first interaction with the courts with frequent repetition concerning the prohibited activity. This includes initial instructions when they first arrive as prospective jurors together with instructions on the juror summons itself. These instructions will be reiterated when they are selected as part of a jury ''pool'' and finally when they are impaneled jurors. There is also encouragement to the trial judge to issue warnings at recesses to reinforce the restrictions.
The restrictions on jurors prohibit the use of communications devices during court proceedings and in the deliberation room and would also prohibit conducting independent research and discussion of the case outside the deliberation room generally. The jurors are also to receive specific instructions against the use of the Internet by means of cell phone or other electronic device for these prohibited activities.
The Committee concluded that the most logical placement for new criminal rules would be in Chapter 6, Part C, Jury Procedures. In order to provide for sufficient room for the new rules, existing Rule 630 has been renumbered as Rule 625 and the new rules placed after it. The major substantive provisions of these changes are included in a new criminal rule, Rule 626, that describes the type of initial instructions to be given upon a prospective juror's first interaction with the courts and at various stages in the proceedings thereafter. Correlative amendments to Criminal Rule 631 require that these warnings be repeated at the beginning of voir dire and amendments to Criminal Rule 647 require the warnings to be repeated at the start of trial.5
Another area that the Committee considered was what types of sanctions would be available against jurors who violate this rule. The Committee concluded that the most likely enforcement mechanism would be the contempt of court process with the associated sanctions. However, the Committee wanted to make it clear that the judge has power to confiscate a device that was used to violate the restrictions. Accordingly, new Criminal Rule 627 authorizes the judge to hold someone in contempt for violation of the rules and to confiscate a device that is used to violate the rules.6
Finally, Rule 632 was amended to correct cross-references to Rule 631 and the Comment to Rule 647 was revised to correct the cross-reference to now-Rule 625.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 15-1366. Filed for public inspection July 24, 2015, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
2 The changes to the Rules of Civil Procedures that the Court has adopted contemporaneously with these changes created new Civil Rules 220.1 and 220.2, amended and renumbered current Civil Rule 220.1, and amended current Civil Rule 223.1.
3 The Joint Subcommittee was comprised of representatives from both Committees and included a common pleas judge, two prosecutors, and several private practitioners. In addition to juror use of these devices, the Joint Subcommittee also examined the misuse of these devices in the courtroom by others, such as spectators. The Committees concluded that the question of controlling juror usage of these devices involves very different concerns as well as remedies than that of usage by others and therefore, the question has not been addressed in the present rule changes.
4 See 42 Pa.B. 380 (January 21, 2012).
5 The changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure require similar instructions to be provided civil jurors and mirror the proposed Criminal Rules.
6 New Criminal Rule 627 also applies to those found in violation of current Rule 112(A) that prohibits recording or broadcasting during a judicial proceeding. As contained in the companion changes to the Rules of Civil Procedures, new Civil Rule 220.2 provides that any person who violates Rule 220.1 may be found in contempt of court and sanctioned in accordance with Section 4132 of the Judicial Code. In addition, the trial judge may also sanction a violator as appropriate including confiscation of the electronic device.
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
